Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Karnataka High Court enhanced the motor accident compensation awarded to the husband and children of the deceased housewife from ₹7,60,000 to ₹10,02,888, correcting the notional income and adding future prospects that the Tribunal had failed to award
The Supreme Court settled the law but not before cataloguing a striking number of contradictory judgments from the same High Courts, sometimes by benches of equal strength, on the same point of law.
“Unless the breach is so fundamental that it has contributed to the cause of the accident, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability.”
The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by Rs 5,79,300.
“A Court sitting in appeal does not substitute its own view for that of the Court below merely because an alternative view is possible.”
The Court observed that the amputation of left leg above knee was due to the injuries sustained during the accident and awarded compensation for loss of future earnings.
“Claimant’s chances of a brilliant career, marriage and all other enjoyment of life have been snatched. Though, no amount of money can compensate such a loss, it does not mean that the just and adequate compensation should not be awarded for the above noted losses.”
“The deceased was a gratuitous passenger based on hearsay knowledge from persons who did not enter the witness box, but, on a preponderance of probabilities, the evidence on record clearly suggest that the deceased was a workman working with the owner.”
“These directions shall continue to bind the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the Commissioners under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 till rule-making power is properly exercised by the Government”.
“Adopting a sensitive approach is crucial for the Tribunal. It plays a key and vital role in ensuring not only justice to the victim of the motor accident but also to determine just and fair compensation”
Regarding appellant’s attempt to overtake a vehicle, the Court stated that he was doing an act which is an everyday occurrence on the road, but resultantly suffered extensive injuries himself. Furthermore, it was proved that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently.
Allahabad High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to decide the Claim Petition afresh.
Bombay High Court found driving a 70 feet long trailer without any brake light or tale lamps as a grievous negligence.
The High Court also held that the claimant is entitled to only 80% of the total compensation amount determined and is also not entitled for compensation towards loss of future earnings due to disability.
There are at least twenty-two official languages in India, and it is no doubt that people speak different languages, however, Hindi is the national language.
Supreme Court observed that the persons from marginalised sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination.
Madras High Court: In an appeal filed against the ruling of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, granting compensation to the three deceased
Gujarat High Court: Sandeep N. Bhatt, J. dismissed an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
Bombay High Court: Noting that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Member did not properly determine just and proper compensation, V.M. Deshpande, J.,
Kerala High Court: Anil K, Narendran, J., allowed this Motor Accident Claim Appeal filed against the order of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.